In this Writing is Thinking Sentence Makeover, we make small changes to a sentence that lead to big questions about meaning. In cleaning up the sentence we confront the question, what precise claim is the author making here?
This sentence is taken from an academic book in religious studies. In a passage about Manassah, ancient king of Judah, the author writes:
- This non-controversial acceptance of Assyrian domination during the long reign of Manasseh (55 years according to 2 Kgs 21.1) must have played a significant role in the diffusion of Neo-Assyrian culture and propaganda in Judah.
The first thing I noticed about this sentence is its subject: acceptance. Which leads to the question: whose acceptance of what? The sentence gives us information about the latter half—the acceptance is of Assyrian domination. But I don’t know who exactly is doing this accepting. The sentence before this one ends, “[Manassah] managed to maintain a peaceful situation by remaining loyal to the Assyrian empire.” So I feel reasonably confident flipping the sentence to make Manassah its subject: Manassah accepted Assyrian dominance. But I’m not positive this is what the author means. A bit earlier in the passage the author discuss the royal court and Judean administration. It is possible that the author want to emphasize a more general political climate, rather than Manassah’s individual policy accepting Assyrian dominance.
The evidence in favor of this latter interpretation is the adjective “non-controversial.” Controversy among whom? I selected this sentence for a makeover because of this awkward phrase: non-controversial acceptance. What work is “non-controversial” doing? Does the author mean to claim that Manassah and his court and administrators all accepted Assyrian dominance? If this is the claim that the author wants to make, then it requires different evidence than what the author has already offered. The evidence for Manassah’s loyalty to Assyria may not be sufficient to show that the other people in positions of power had no objections to his decision. In my revision of the sentence, I cut “non-controversial,” and I would add a note to the author indicating I don’t know what work the adjective is doing. If it is doing crucial work, I would suggest the author add a sentence that elaborates or clarifies what he means. (And by breaking out the precise, specific claims, hopefully the author, reader, and I can see more clearly whether the claim is supported with evidence or not).
Another issue with making the subject of the sentence “acceptance” is the subject-verb pairing at the core of the sentence. The original sentence claims, “The acceptance plays a significant role.” When a subject is an abstract noun like “acceptance,” we must be careful what verbs we assign it. What does it mean for acceptance to play a role? Do the author and the reader have a concrete understanding of this action? These questions reveal the sneaky vagueness of “plays a significant role.” While this phrase is not particularly confusing at first glance, upon closer inspection it is imprecise. Even if we settle on the revised sentence, “Manassah accepted,” it is not very informative to claim that his action “played a significant role” in the diffusion of Neo-Assyrian culture and propaganda in Judah. More precise verbs might include, “led to,” “contributed to,” “promoted,” “hastened,” or “facilitated.” Each of these verbs more precisely identifies what role Manassah’s action might have played.
It is clear that the author wants to emphasize the spread of Assyrian culture throughout Judah and wants to connect that spread to Manassah’s reign. But the original sentence leaves many possibilities open. Does the author want to claim simply that Neo-Assyrian propaganda spread during Manassah’s reign? That it spread because of Manassah’s attitude? That it spread because of the political climate? This precision matters because the author needs different evidence and argument for each claim. It matters because each claim does different work in supporting various possible conclusions. It matters because a reader might object to or challenge each claim differently.
This precision matters because the author needs different evidence and argument for each claim. It matters because each claim does different work in supporting various possible conclusions. It matters because a reader might object to or challenge each claim differently.
writingisthinking.com
This sentence makeover exposes the gap between what a sentence says and what its author means. I propose the following revision of the sentence, but only the author can evaluate whether it is an appropriate replacement.
- Manassah accepted Assyrian dominance throughout his long reign (55 years according to 2 Kgs 21.1), which likely facilitated the diffusion of Neo-Assyrian culture and propaganda in Judah.